^ So 'not complying' should result in pepper spray, tasers etc as a first option?

What about negotiation, restraint such as handcuffs, armlocks, carrying away, etc?

Click to expand...

CBS recently interviewed an expert who explained that most of what you suggest is arguaby more dangerous:

Charles J. Kelly, a former Baltimore Police Department lieutenant who wrote the department's use of force guidelines, said pepper spray is a "compliance tool" that can be used on subjects who do not resist, and is preferable to simply lifting protesters.

After reviewing the video, Kelly said he observed at least two cases of "active resistance" from protesters. In one instance, a woman pulls her arm back from an officer. In the second instance, a protester curls into a ball. Each of those actions could have warranted more force, including baton strikes and pressure-point techniques.

The fact that you're defending the pepper spray incident is fairly repugnant. You honestly think the police should be pepper spraying non-violent citizens? That's skirting a little too close to police state for my tastes.

^ So 'not complying' should result in pepper spray, tasers etc as a first option?

What about negotiation, restraint such as handcuffs, armlocks, carrying away, etc?

Click to expand...

CBS recently interviewed an expert who explained that most of what you suggest is arguaby more dangerous:

Charles J. Kelly, a former Baltimore Police Department lieutenant who wrote the department's use of force guidelines, said pepper spray is a "compliance tool" that can be used on subjects who do not resist, and is preferable to simply lifting protesters.

After reviewing the video, Kelly said he observed at least two cases of "active resistance" from protesters. In one instance, a woman pulls her arm back from an officer. In the second instance, a protester curls into a ball. Each of those actions could have warranted more force, including baton strikes and pressure-point techniques.

The fact that you're defending the pepper spray incident is fairly repugnant. You honestly think the police should be pepper spraying non-violent citizens?

Click to expand...

If the police overreact in any situation, they should be disciplined and/or prosecuted. However, according to the expert I cited (and a number of court cases), the use of pepper spray against protesters isn't, per se, excessive force.

If the police overreact in any situation, they should be disciplined and/or prosecuted. However, according to the expert I cited (and a number of court cases), the use of pepper spray against protesters isn't, per se, excessive force.

If the police overreact in any situation, they should be disciplined and/or prosecuted. However, according to the expert I cited (and a number of court cases), the use of pepper spray against protesters isn't, per se, excessive force.

Click to expand...

Then that needs to be changed ASAP.

Click to expand...

Not if more people would ultimately be injured, which seems to be part of the point of the CBS story I cited.

Well that game can probably go all night. I just wouldn't unquestioningly accept what they say about public safety and to be fair it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. It just seems like it would be an easy stand to abuse which is what I'd be wary of.

If the police overreact in any situation, they should be disciplined and/or prosecuted. However, according to the expert I cited (and a number of court cases), the use of pepper spray against protesters isn't, per se, excessive force.

Click to expand...

Then that needs to be changed ASAP.

Click to expand...

I can only agree with you here, i think spraying any dangerous chemical indiscriminately at anybody simply to move them alone is a step in the wrong direction for any law, i certainly would class the act as excessive, especially for people simply protesting peacefully.

Actually, yeah, it does. If you believe that corporations are too powerful, don't enrich corporations.

It's especially egregious in the case of giant corporations that are also media companies, insofar as corporate media are one of their major targets.

Click to expand...

There is no avoiding the enrichment of corporations. Every time I buy a book, newspaper, watch a movie etc, I'm doing so, directly or indirectly.

One doesn't have to be against corporations and capitalism to think that executives paying themselves bonusses at a time when other people's standars of living is failing is obscene; one can be a capitalist or even a conservative and still think that the fact that lobbyists have politicians in their pocket is an affront to decency and democracy, as is the fact that politicians can vote in legislation that personally enriches them and organisations in which they have shares, without disclosing same to the electorate. Do you want to live in a country run by the likes of Silvio Berlusconi?

Actually, yeah, it does. If you believe that corporations are too powerful, don't enrich corporations.

It's especially egregious in the case of giant corporations that are also media companies, insofar as corporate media are one of their major targets.

Click to expand...

There is no avoiding the enrichment of corporations. Every time I buy a book, newspaper, watch a movie etc, I'm doing so, directly or indirectly.

One doesn't have to be against corporations and capitalism to think that executives paying themselves bonusses at a time when other people's standars of living is failing is obscene; one can be a capitalist or even a conservative and still think that the fact that lobbyists have politicians in their pocket is an affront to decency and democracy, as is the fact that politicians can vote in legislation that personally enriches them and organisations in which they have shares, without disclosing same to the electorate. Do you want to live in a country run by the likes of Silvio Berlusconi?

Click to expand...

Depends, do I get an invite to the bunga-bunga parties?

Of course the amusing thing is that Berlusconi was at least actually democratically elected (God alone knows how!) where as now there isn't a single elected official in the Italian govt!

But yeah, I'm pro Capitalism and I'm not anti anyone making money but some of the bonusses flying around are just plain ridiculous, and I like the idea of splitting the banks into highstreet/investment arms...it gets somewhat scary when people are saying levels of inequality will soon reach Victorian levels.

That said no one was complaining about the banks when they were handing out cheap loans/mortgages, and as corrupt as the whole system is people were a lot more accepting four or five years ago, and I do think people have to accept some level of accountability for the mess we find oursevles in.

Re the V masks, what I find amusing is that Fawkes is being held up as some kind of freedom fighter when he was effectively just a religious extremist terrorist. Imagine in 500 years time a bunch of protestors in Osama Bin Laden masks? (And I know V in the film was fighting a cruel dictatorship but most people just think it's Guy Fawkes and that he must be cool because he wanted to blow up Parliament and all the MPs-idiots!)

Well, Frank Miller is someone whose work I’ve barely looked at for the past twenty years. I thought the Sin City stuff was unreconstructed misogyny, 300 appeared to be wildly ahistoric, homophobic and just completely misguided. I think that there has probably been a rather unpleasant sensibility apparent in Frank Miller’s work for quite a long time. Since I don’t have anything to do with the comics industry, I don’t have anything to do with the people in it. I heard about the latest outpourings regarding the Occupy movement. It’s about what I’d expect from him. It’s always seemed to me that the majority of the comics field, if you had to place them politically, you’d have to say centre-right. That would be as far towards the liberal end of the spectrum as they would go. I’ve never been in any way, I don’t even know if I’m centre-left. I’ve been outspoken about that since the beginning of my career. So yes I think it would be fair to say that me and Frank Miller have diametrically opposing views upon all sorts of things, but certainly upon the Occupy movement.

As far as I can see, the Occupy movement is just ordinary people reclaiming rights which should always have been theirs. I can’t think of any reason why as a population we should be expected to stand by and see a gross reduction in the living standards of ourselves and our kids, possibly for generations, when the people who have got us into this have been rewarded for it; they’ve certainly not been punished in any way because they’re too big to fail. I think that the Occupy movement is, in one sense, the public saying that they should be the ones to decide who’s too big to fail. It’s a completely justified howl of moral outrage and it seems to be handled in a very intelligent, non-violent way, which is probably another reason why Frank Miller would be less than pleased with it. I’m sure if it had been a bunch of young, sociopathic vigilantes with Batman make-up on their faces, he’d be more in favour of it. We would definitely have to agree to differ on that one.What do you think needs to change in our political system?
Everything. I believe that what’s needed is a radical solution, by which I mean from the roots upwards. Our entire political thinking seems to me to be based upon medieval precepts. These things, they didn’t work particularly well five or six hundred years ago. Their slightly modified forms are not adequate at all for the rapidly changing territory of the 21st Century.
We need to overhaul the way that we think about money, we need to overhaul the way that we think about who’s running the show. As an anarchist, I believe that power should be given to the people, to the people whose lives this is actually affecting. It’s no longer good enough to have a group of people who are controlling our destinies. The only reason they have the power is because they control the currency. They have no moral authority and, indeed, they show the opposite of moral authority.

Imagine in 500 years time a bunch of protestors in Osama Bin Laden masks? (And I know V in the film was fighting a cruel dictatorship

Click to expand...

Hell, we already have all the morons in Che shirts and that was only about fifty years ago.

Click to expand...

Che is hardly an apt comparison with Bin Laden.

Click to expand...

No, he really is. He may have started out as a man who cared about people and wanted to end economic inequality, but in the end, the guy was presiding over the executions of hundreds of political prisoners in Cuba.

Also, in order to truly discuss Miller's post, one must be able to discuss the OWS movement itself: it's goals, its tactics, its membership. All of which means that this entire thread can-and will-easily be about nothing but politics and current events. Are the mods prepared for, and willing to allow, that?

One doesn't have to be against corporations and capitalism to think that executives paying themselves bonusses at a time when other people's standars of living is failing is obscene

Click to expand...

Particularly since a lot of it is money that they didn't earn. If these businesses were truly allowed to succeed or fail on their own, then it would be one thing. However, so many of them have gotten government bailouts, OUR money, yet we don't see a dime of benefit from it. I'm far from a Marxist, but considering how much public money has gone into these private corporations, I would say it's only fair that the people seize a portion of their assets for compensation.